More Than ISIS, Iraq’s Sunni Insurgency

Maliki’s alienation of Sunni actors is at the heart of ISIS’s success in Iraq.

The story of the ongoing events in Iraq is one of lost opportunities. By December 2013, many Sunni leaders had become tired of the jihadi group the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) actions, in their areas and on the other side of the border in Syria, and publicly supported the federal government’s military campaign against the group’s bases. At that time, the momentum against ISIS offered a renewed opportunity for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to work with these Sunni tribal and religious leaders to combat terrorism.

But instead, Maliki gave a speech in which he portrayed his planned military campaign in Anbar as an ancient war between “the followers of Hussein and the followers of Yazid,” a reference to a 7th century defining Shia battle. The campaign in Anbar has been a disaster, and that failure is directly relevant to today's crisis. The Iraqi forces failed to dislodge the jihadis and, even worse, Maliki took several steps that played into the hands of extremists. He foolishly shut down a popular protest camp in which thousands of Sunni Iraqis rallied for peaceful change for months, arrested powerful Sunni Member of Parliament Ahmed al-Alwani and killed his brother. Baghdad did not only miss a unique opportunity to move beyond the sectarian divide but made the situation in Sunni areas more favorable for jihadis.

Today, the simplistic portrayal by media and world politicians of the rebellion in Iraq risks making a similar mistake. Headlines as well as political statements focused on ISIS as the only force behind the takeover of several Sunni cities north of Baghdad. And although more recent coverage started to acknowledge the presence of other forces, the dynamics in Sunni areas are still far more complex. But regardless of the extent of its role, ISIS is only one faction in the insurgency. There are at least half a dozen groupings that took part in the offensive.

Other than the two jihadi militias ISIS and Ansar al-Islam, insurgents include a coalition of nearly 80 Sunni Arab tribes, known as the Military Council of the Tribes of Iraq. This coalition has strong presence in Sunni areas especially in Fallujah, Ramadi, and in various areas in Nineveh and Salaheddin. According to Arabic news site al-Araby al-Jadid, the coalition is estimated to include about 41 armed groups, among them soldiers and officers from the dismantled Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein.

Then there is the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, a group allegedly headed by former Iraqi vice president Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri. Formed in 2007, the group consists of thousands of former members of the Baath party, as well Sufi and Muslim Brotherhood-leaning fighters. At least in terms of numbers, the group is a strong rival to ISIS and has strong social roots in the community. In 2009, U.S. officials warned that the order might be more dangerous than al-Qaeda because its members succeeded in establishing deep roots within Sunni Iraqi society.

The Naqshbandis, who operate mostly in Mosul, downplay their Sunni focus and claim to have Kurdish and Shia members. Observers of the group say that it also operates under different names primarily provisional military and tribal councils. But it appears that loyalists to the dismantled Baath Party of Iraq dominate the army as they do in many of the Sunni groupings that emerged in the wake of the protest movement of 2011-2013, such as the General Military Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries (GMCIR). This tendency of Iraqi Baath loyalists to operate through fronts was confirmed last week by Abu Mariya al-Qahtani, a prominent Iraqi jihadi who now works for Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, who tweeted: “the Baathists work on all levels and with several faces and forms.” A spokesman of GMCIR told the BBC on Sunday that his group is stronger than ISIS and that they adhere to the principles of Geneva Convention, unlike ISIS, which he described as “barbarian.”

These non-ISIS groups have played a significant role in the fighting; according to local sources they not only took part in the fighting but have been the dominant force in several areas, including Mosul and Kirkuk. According to a report by Saudi Arabia channel Al Arabiya, the Islamic Army, believed to be the largest armed group after ISIS and the military councils, prevented ISIS from entering Dulu'iyya, around 55km(34mi) north of Baghdad after they took control of it, due to ideological divergences. Tribal forces, according to the same report, controlled areas such as Alam, Hajjaj, and Albu Ujail, and in Mosul tribal forces and Naqshbandis controlled areas such as al-Wahda, Sukkar, and Baladiyat.

The involvement of such forces alongside ISIS is the worrying trend, not because they fight side by side with jihadis but because many of those fighters once stood by the federal government against the extremists. This fact alone should help the international community figure out the true causes for today’s crisis. Sunni religious and tribal leaders have shown several times that they were willing to stand by the federal government against extremism: during the “Iraqi Surge” in 2007, before the Anbar campaign in December 2013, and a few times in between.

These forces have little in common with ISIS. Indeed, tensions are already mounting between the two, in media and on the ground. Shortly after the takeover of Mosul last week, ISIS issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Naqshbandis to remove posters of Saddam Hussein from the streets of Mosul, and then demanded that no other group issue a statement about events on the ground. These tensions reflect profound differences, as ISIS considers Baathists to be kafirs (infidels) while Baathists reject ISIS religious extremism.

Another indication is the fact that Sunni residents fear a government military response more than they fear the militias in their neighborhoods. Residents are already returning to their areas and, according to sources in Mosul, people are expressing a sense of relief for the departure of government forces. A local resident noted that her younger brother said he never saw his city in this light before: “he grew up under sanctions, under occupation and government security [crackdown],” she said. “He refuses to leave now, as the city feels real for him for the first time.”

Recognition of these dynamics, instead of focusing on ISIS, is essential to resolving the crisis. The stakes in Iraq are higher than any time before, and the situation has never more perilous. Between 2005 and 2007, when Iraq faced a civil war and the rise of al-Qaeda elements, the American troops were still in the country and religious leaders from both sides actively called for calm. Today, the country faces similar challenges but without the forces that helped to save Iraq before: Sunni religious leaders are either supporting the rebellion or too discredited to have any influence. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who played a central role in calming sectarian tensions during the 2005-2007 civil war, has issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to pick up arms and join the government’s forces in fighting ISIS. Although he intended to speak to all Iraqis regardless of their sect, his fatwa has been seen as a call for arms against Sunnis owing to the deep polarization.

A credible and inclusive political process is the way forward. Sunni Iraqis willing to engage in the political process are still the majority. But, to them, Maliki has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted. In 2010, Washington made the mistake of accepting an Iranian plan to help Maliki assume a second term despite the fact that the Iraqiyya bloc won a majority. In this crisis, there are signs that Washington will make another mistake, by seeking Iran's help in fighting ISIS. But that only adds insult to injury and will deepen Sunnis' sense of estrangement and betrayal.

Hassan Hassan is a research associate with the Delma Institute, a research center in Abu Dhabi. Follow him on Twitter @hhassan140.

Comments (6)

Post your comments (2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.)Screen NameFollow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address

(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)

Peace between Shiites, Sunnis, and Allawites has proved to be elusive by our democratic institution standards. Perhaps, Saddam Hussein heavy hand in the region was a blessing in disguise to the world, he kept the Middle East in check. The inroads of terrorism in Iraq and the worst humanitarian crisis in the Middle East seem to support this view. If ever there was a chance to succeed at nation building in Iraq, it was lost to al-Maliki tribalism, Mr. Obama hands off in U.S foreign policy, and the amateurish leadership in the EU. What is left if nothing short of another military adventurism, and more bloodshed.

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.)Screen NameFollow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address

(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.)Screen NameFollow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address

(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)

As an American (and an army veteran), my take on all this is simple: The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been going at each other for over 1000 years, while the USA has only been around for a bit over 200 years. Afghanistan, too, has been fighting this one or that one at least as long as the others. Pakistan is made up of people who didn't want to live in a country that wasn't run by Muslims and who seem to be as bloodthirsty and intolerant as any other Islamic group.

What we need is to develop better, safer, fracking procedures and better, less-expensive renewable energy sources. That way we can read stories about the (inevitable) violence in the middle east and only pay attention to it if it affects our allies there -- like Israel, India (because it's close to the Afghans and Pakistanis) and maybe Jordan.

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.)Screen NameFollow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address

(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)

Ignorant and offensive comments like this are part of the reason the Middle East (and a large majority of the world) are so against the USA. Add to it that you have identified yourself as an army veteran who in theory should have some knowledge and sensitivity towards the communities you enter, and it is clear to see why US foreign policy is so appalling. You have portrayed America as so rational and peaceful, yet who is who went into Iraq and turned the entire system on its head in the name of "Iraqi Freedom"? Maliki is surely to blame for his own part (as the author duly notes) but you cannot pretend that the USA did not play a role in this. Who was it who instituted a sectarian political system in Iraq that favoured the Shia above the Sunni? Or is this all simply a result of "the crazy Arab warmongering Muslim"?

But by all means continue living in your fantasy land. I will continue to live in the land dealing with the fallout from US actions and misguided foreign policy, where people would really rather just get on with their lives but are constantly prevented from doing so.

Saddam was the hitler of the middle east. Glad we took him out, even if it was for the wrong reasons (WMD). As for staying and trying to force democracy on people that are still basically tribal, waste of time and lives. These countries were arbitrarily created and now will revert to who knows what. There are tribes after tribes fighting each other as they have for generations. Pull out of it, offer aid to nobody, let them do what they have done for decades if not hundreds of years. There is only one democracy in the area and of course that is the only thing that unites these people, the hatred of that democracy. I don't care if this is offensive, or you can call it ignorant, but the people in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, etc are hell bent on killing each other, let them.

This article is the best picture and representation to reality on the ground in Iraq. All this Chaos and the destruction of Iraq are going on as planned by occupying forces as to divide and control. Away from media and the administration's lies. Iraq has been occupied and destroyed for only one reason, To Control its OIL resources.

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.)Screen NameFollow the conversation Sign up to receive e-mail updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address

(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)

Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.